Allegations don't make Eben Etzebeth guilty
I agree to some extent with Richardson Mzaidume's letter (October 10), more so with the statement that "Twitter is toxic and that people will go to the extent of disrupting the national team's performances with insinuations".
I just need for him to understand that he is one of those people. He wrote: "There's no doubt that lock Eben Etzebeth should not be in Japan since there are serious allegations about his conduct in Langebaan where people were assaulted and racist words were used."
These are allegations, like he clearly states. So, why must Etzebeth be found guilty before anything was proven against him? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Should the lock be treated differently and be found guilty until proven innocent?
I am in no way protecting Etzebeth or insinuating that he should not be punished if found guilty, all I am asking for is fairness. This is the order of things when there are allegations made against anyone: a case is opened, investigations are carried out, evidence gathered then charges are laid arrests maybe made if the evidence is convincing.
The next thing is the accused who must be given a fair chance to make representation with a legal representative or on their own.
When it comes to celebrations in sports, players will always have a special celebration. Sphiwe Tshabalala scored a beauty in the 2010 World Cup but only five players celebrated in a special way, all of them black. Steven Pienaar, the only so-called coloured on the field was not part of it. Were they being racist?
Zakes Nakedi, Ennerdale
Would you like to comment on this article or view other readers' comments? Register (it’s quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.